Studies find no advantage of intraosseous access over intravenous for cardiac arrest treatment

Two recent trials have found that using intraosseous access for administering epinephrine during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is not more effective than intravenous access. The PARAMEDIC-3 trial in the U.K. reported a 30-day survival rate of 4.5% for intraosseous access compared to 5.1% for intravenous access. Similarly, the IVIO trial in Denmark showed no significant difference in outcomes between the two methods. Both trials involved over 7,500 patients and indicated that intravenous access remains the preferred method, with intraosseous access as a secondary option. The trials also noted that while intraosseous access had a higher initial success rate, it did not lead to better survival outcomes. The findings suggest that current guidelines favor intravenous access for cardiac arrest treatment.